30.01.2025 HOME SECRE CHANDIGARH ECRETARY-CUM-SECRETARY TE IGARH ADMINISTRATION RY TECHNICAL EDUCATION S.S. BHATTI A v. **** ioner
Case Details
CWP-17461-2012 2012 (O&M) 210 Page 1 of 5 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT CM-16451-CWP-2019 in/and /and CWP-17461-2012 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 HOME SECRE CHANDIGARH ECRETARY-CUM-SECRETARY TE IGARH ADMINISTRATION RY TECHNICAL EDUCATION S.S. BHATTI A TTI AND OTHERS Vs. **** ioner . . . . Petitioner s . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ CORAM: HO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate, Jr. P Present: M M Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate, Add for the petitioner. for te, Jr. Panel Counsel for e, Addl. Standing Counsel **** M Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.1. Fo
Legal Reasoning
M Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.2. for **** SANJEEV PR ral) PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. This is a is is an old case pertaining to the yea n on he year 2012. Main case is taken on board tod ard today itself. 2. The shor e short point involved in the present c dent esent case is whether the respondent No.1, w who was admittedly appointed a igarh inted as a Principal of Chandigarh College o llege of Architecture, Chandigarh on after rh on 01.04.1982 and was thereafter placed on ced on regular basis vide order dated r the dated 21.01.1988, is entitled for the pay scale y scale as admissible to the Principal o ation cipal of the College. The application MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17461-2012 2012 (O&M) Page 2 of 5 filed by t ed by the respondent No.1 claiming th wed ing the said salary has been allowed by the CA the CAT with directions as under: “17. The O.A. shall stand di
Decision
d disposed of accordingly. The impugned order, annexure A-1, s Th 1, shall stand invalidated. The applicant is held entitled to the Th the pay scale of Rs.6300- 200-7300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.18 20 s.18400-5090-22400 (with minimum at Rs.19,400/-) from 1.1.19 mi 1.1996.” 3. Further, rther, it has been directed to gr ance to grant two additional advance incremen rements which are admissible to him esent o him and not denied by the present writ petit petitioner. Interest @9% has also be lso been directed to be released. 4. The main e main contention of the learned coun at as d counsel for the petitioner is that as responde pondent No.1 had been working on a larly g on ad hoc basis and was regularly appointe pointed as Principal on 21.01.1988, t r the 988, there was no occasion for the CAT to T to direct the applicant/responden the ondent No.1 to be entitled to the regular p ular pay scale with effect from 01.01.1 01.01.1986. 5. Meeting eeting with the said submissions, the No.1 s, the counsel for respondent No.1 submits bmits that the observations made by 2017 de by this Court as on 03.04.2017 while he ile hearing the counsel for the petitio and petitioner are acceptable to him, and he would would limit his prayer for being gran cipal g granted the pay scale of Principal from the m the date he acquired the necessary n for cessary educational qualification for post. the post. 6. On 03.04 03.04.2017, this Court observed as un d as under: “The controversy before the the Tribunal was whether the first respondent was entitled to the to pre-revised pay scales of Rs.6300-200-7300 w.e.f. 01.01.19 of 1.1986 and Rs.18400-500- 22400 w.e.f. 01.01.1996? 22 MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17461-2012 2012 (O&M) Page 3 of 5 The above-stated pay scales w les were sought by the first respondent on the ground that he p res he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the qu post of Principal of Chandigarh College of Architecture Ch ture from where he retired on attaining the age of superannuati on uation on 30.06.1996. The petitioner-authorities apparently de pe y denied the above-stated pay scale on the ground that such h pa ch higher pay scale for the post of Principal was admissible onl po only to those who possess the qualification of Ph.D. We find fro the d from the record that even as per the petitioner-authorities, as ies, the first respondent acquired the qualification of Master ac asters of Architecture from University of Queensland in 1983 an Un 3 and thereafter he got the Doctorate degree in Architecture Do ture in the year 1991. Assuming that the first respondent w As ent was not entitled to the pay scale, as demanded by him w pa m w.e.f. 01.01.1986, there appears to be no justification for n ap for not granting such pay scale from the year 1991 when sc hen the first respondent acquired the qualification of Doctora ac ctorate in Architecture. Learned counsel for the th petitioner seeks adjournment to have instructions in t ad s in this regard. List on 28.09.2017. Registry to inform the counsel nsel for the respondent for the date fixed.” the 7. Although though the counsel for the petitioner so time, oner sought adjournment at that time, even as o en as on today, they failed to submit a this bmit any further submissions in this regard, a ard, and have left it for the Union o t the nion of India to take a call. But the Union of ion of India has also not filed any ave ny averment in this regard. 8. Be that a that as it may, taking into considerati old, ideration that the matter is very old, we do no do not find it a case to give further d we urther time to the counsels, and we follow th llow the view which we had already king lready taken at the time of making observati servations on 03.04.2017 (supra). MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17461-2012 2012 (O&M) Page 4 of 5 9. It has c has come on record and noticed b dent ticed by the CAT that respondent No.1/orig .1/original applicant had obtained doc 991. ed doctorate degree in the year 1991. The qual e qualifications for the post of Princip rincipal were as under: 5. Profes ofessor of Rs.4500-150- 1. r’s First Class Bachelor’s 5700-200-7300 or Degree in Architecture or equivalent qualification; and 2. in 10 Years experience in teaching/industry/Research be out of which 5 years must be at the ant level of Assistant Professor or equivalent ing (8 years for those possessing Master’s Degree in in ant Architecture or in relevant for discipline or 6 years for those possessing Ph.D in in nt Architecture or in relevant discipline). 6. Princip incipal/Director 300 Rs.6300-200-7300 Same as that of Professor 10. In view view of above, taking into considera No.1 nsideration that the respondent No.1 possesse ssessed the said qualifications and as a s and was already working as a Principal incipal since 1982, and has retired as ed to red as such, he would be entitled to the pay s pay scales which are available for th lding e for the post which he was holding namely P mely Principal. 11. The ord he order passed by the CAT date ingly dated 10.10.2011 is accordingly modified dified and the writ petition is partly a ffect, artly allowed to the aforesaid effect, directing ecting the original applicant/responde o the spondent No.1 to be entitled to the pay scale y scale of Rs.6300-200-7300 with effe , and ith effect from December, 1991, and MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17461-2012 2012 (O&M) Page 5 of 5 he would would also be entitled for revision o le of ision of the pay in the pay scale of Rs.18400 .18400-5090-22400 (with minimum of from um of Rs.19,400/-) with effect from 01.01.19 .01.1996, and also the other benefits a m by efits as have been granted to him by the CAT CAT in its order dated 10.10.2011. 12. Since re nce respondent No.1 has already ret ected dy retired long back, it is expected from the m the petitioner to comply with t bove with the order passed hereinabove positivel sitively within a period of four months dent months, failing which the respondent No.1 wo would be entitled to penal costs of ered osts of Rs.1,00,000/- to be recovered from the m the concerned officers who have d h the have delayed in complying with the Court’s o urt’s orders. 13. Writ Pet sed of. rit Petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. Applicat pplication No.CM-16451-CWP-2019 2019 is allowed accordingly. 15. All pend ending applications also stand dispo d disposed of. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE 30.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether ther speaking/reasoned? ther reportable? Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.05 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document