Jai Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner retired as PET on 3.6.2011. He was re-employed as PET on 1.7.2011 on the basis of notification, dated 23.9.2010. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has not been paid vacation salary for the period w.e.f. 27.7.2011 to 10.8.2011 and 22.10.2011 to 27.10.2011. There-employment of the petitioner is governed by the notification, issued on 23.9.2010. The objective of the policy of re-employment, is to ensure availability of teachers and all other officers during academic session with a view to provide quality education in the State. The expressions "Academic Session", "End of Academic Session", "Commencement and end of Academic Session", "Other Officers", "Policy", "Re-employing Authority", "Re-employment", "Remuneration" and "Teachers", have been defined in the policy. The pay of re-employed teachers/other officers is fixed in terms of instructions of Finance Department, dated 19.4.2010 read with instructions, dated 1.12.1988 and 8.9.1999, pertaining to re-employed pensioners, i.e., the re-employed teachers/other officers will get the last pay drawn minus pension, as remuneration/pay per month. The re-employed teachers are not entitled for the benefit of increment for the period of his re-employment. The CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 are not made applicable to the reemployed teachers and other officers. However, they are entitled for one casual leave in a month. The re-employed teachers/other officers are also not entitled for addition of re-employment period in total number of qualifying service rendered before retirement for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The pay of reemployed teacher/other officer is to be drawn against the vacant post which he holds immediately before retirement. The re-employment is for running academic session only i.e., till 31st December in winter vacation schools and 31st March in summer vacation schools.

The petitioner is required to be treated with regularly appointed teachers, except where benefits have been specifically excluded as per the Scheme. There is no exclusionary Clause in the Scheme, denying the salary to the petitioner for the vacation period. He is discharging the same duties which are being discharged by a regularly appointed teacher. There is no difference in the academic qualification, responsibilities and duties of the reemployed teachers vis-a-vis regularly appointed teachers. The objective of the Scheme, as noticed hereinabove, is to ensure continuity and availability of teachers with a view to provide quality education in the State and to avoid disruption of studies. What has been specifically excluded in the Scheme, is the applicability of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the re-employed teachers/other officers shall not be entitled for addition of re-employment period in total number of qualifying service rendered before retirement for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The re-employed teacher is not entitled to increment for the period of his re-employment and he is also not allowed to subscribe towards GPF/CPF after his reemployment. The pay of re-employed teacher/other officer is to be drawn against the vacant post which he was holding immediately before retirement.

The petitioner is to be treated at par with regularly appointed teachers, except in those matters where the benefits have been specifically restricted. There is nothing on record to suggest that the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The petitioner has not been paid vacation salary w.e.f. 27.7.2011 to 10.8.2011 and 22.10.2011 to 27.10.2011. The action of the respondent-State is arbitrary, unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, has directed the State of Haryana to pay the ad hoc teachers salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation. Their Lordships have held as under:-

We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which ''ad hoc'' teachers are denied the salary and allowances or the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These ''ad hoc'' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.

A Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 has also held the teachers appointed on ad hoc/contract/tenure basis entitled to vacation salary. In case ad hoc/contract/tenure appointees are held entitled to vacation salary, the petitioner being on better footing vis-a-vis them, is also entitled to vacation salary. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-State is directed to release the vacation salary of the period w.e.f. 27.7.2011 to 10.8.2011 and 22.10.2011 to 27.10.2011 to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.