of Punjab & Ors Vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors
 Insc 418 (17
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) Nos. 12079-81of 2003) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that
the respondents are entitled to pay at a scale applicable to lecturer, from the
date of the initial deputation till absorption as lecturer.
background, are essentially as follows:
were working as teachers designated as masters in the Punjab Education
Department. On the basis of the Government order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78,
dated 20.07.90 certain officials were appointed on deputation and on transfer
basis in their present pay scale against the post mentioned against each. Nine
persons were accordingly posted and on transfer they were appointed as
lecturers. The Government order dated 3.8.1990 is of significance to which we
shall advert infra. The respondents made a claim that they were entitled to the
pay scales as lecturers since they were on deputation and the experience as
lecturer should be computed in the parent department. The High Court held that
the claim of arrears of salary for the period from 1989 onwards is on account
of difference in the scale of pay. The same was found to be belated and
accordingly the prayer was rejected.
it was noticed that the respondents had discharged the duty in the post of
lecturers and therefore, from the date of initial deputation till the actual
absorption they were entitled to the revised scale of pay.
support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
order dated 3.8.1990 clearly indicated that the claim for any sort of monetary
benefit or experience benefit was not available. After having accepted that the
claim was belated the High Court should not have treated it to be a case of
continuing cause of action. The claim was highly belated and, therefore, no
relief was available. The effect of the order dated 3.8.1990 has been
completely lost sight of by the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in the
year, 1989, the High Court as noted above, dismissed the claim for arrear of
salaries and had directed the present appellants to grant the benefit of salary
rendered from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization.
counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondents
having rendered service for a long period cannot be deprived of their
counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents had worked
as lecturers and merely because there is some stipulation in the order dated
3.8.1990 relating to deputation and on transfer basis that cannot override the
logic of equal pay for equal work.
counsel for the respondents tried to explain that the true meaning of the
descriptive part of the order clearly shows that the respondents were
undertaking the jobs of lecturers in the college.
relevant portion of the order dated 3.8.1990 reads as follows:
the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee for appointment in the (DIET's
Faculty) institutes of education and training. The following officials are
hereby appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their own present pay
scale against the post mentioned against each. They will not be entitled for
any other monetary benefits, seniority, deputation allowance and claim in any
way the experience benefit against the post of Lecturer. These orders are
issued in compliance with Govt. order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated
20.07.90." A bare reading of the aforesaid underlined operation clearly
shows that the respondents' claim was clearly unacceptable. It was
categorically mentioned in the order extracted above that the concerned
officers were appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their own
present pay scale and they were not entitled to any monetary benefit, seniority
view of the clear stipulations, the High Court fell into grave error in holding
that the respondents were entitled to pay scale applicable to Lecturers. That
being so the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.
appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs.