Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(P&H) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 11686 of 2004 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 6220 of 2009 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 19229 of 2011 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 7187 of 2015 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 13243 of 2016 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 14773 of 2017 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 15168 of 2019 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 17158 of 2019 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 28125 of 2019 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 37274 of 2019 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 11706 of 2020 (O&M) and Civil Writ Petition No. 11988 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, Mr. Samrat Malik, Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocates, Mr. Saurabh Bajaj And Ms. Ashwarya Bajaj, Advocates, Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the Appellant; Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Mr. Pranav Bhasin, Advocates, Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate, Mr. Rajeeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Thakan, Advocate, Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate, Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the Respondent

The ACP Rules were not part of the salary grant, and the statutory provisions did not entitle non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules.

Headnote:
ACP - Entitlement of Teachers and Employees of Privately Managed Aided Schools/Colleges - Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 - 1995 Act, 2003 Rules, 1979 Act, 2006 Rules - The court examined the relevant provisions of the 1995 Act, 2003 Rules, 1979 Act, and 2006 Rules to determine the entitlement of the teachers and employees of privately managed aided schools/colleges to the benefits at par with government servants under the ACP Rules. The court found that the ACP Rules were never made part of the salary grant and that the statutory provisions did not entitle the non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules. The court also noted that the ACP is an incentive for government employees and that the teaching staff and non-teaching staff constitute different categories. The court dismissed all the writ petitions as lacking merit.
Fact of the Case:

The court examined the entitlement of teachers and employees of privately managed aided schools/colleges to benefits at par with government servants under the ACP Rules. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Haryana to pay the benefits under the ACP Rules. The State had enacted the 1995 Act and notified the 2003 Rules to regulate certain terms of service of teachers and employees of privately managed aided schools, and the 1979 Act and 2006 Rules for employees of privately managed aided colleges.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the ACP Rules were never made part of the salary grant and that the statutory provisions did not entitle the non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules. The court also noted that the ACP is an incentive for government employees and that the teaching staff and non-teaching staff constitute different categories. The court dismissed all the writ petitions as lacking merit.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of teachers and employees of privately managed aided schools/colleges to benefits at par with government servants under the ACP Rules, and the applicability of the ACP Rules to non-teaching employees of privately managed aided colleges.
Ratio Decidendi: The ACP Rules were never made part of the salary grant, and the statutory provisions did not entitle the non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules. The ACP is an incentive for government employees, and the teaching staff and non-teaching staff constitute different categories.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions as lacking merit.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 11686 of 2014, 6220 of 2009, 19229 of 2011, 7187 of 2015, 13243 of 2016, 14773 of 2017, 15168, 17158, 28125 & 37274 of 2019 and 11706 & 11988 of 2020. This Court as well as learned counsel for the parties are of the view that these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as the following common question arises for adjudication.

"Whether the writ petitioners (the teachers and employees of the privately managed aided school/colleges) are entitled to the benefits at par with the government servants, under the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1998 Rules") or rules framed thereafter, substituting the previous one?"

2. The writ petitioners herein are the employees of the privately managed aided schools/colleges. They call upon this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Haryana to pay the benefits under the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules framed from time to time. In the year 2016, the State notified the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2016 Rules") substituting the previous one.

3. The state has enacted The Haryana School Education Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act") and notified the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003"( hereinafter referred to "the 2003 rules")to regulate certain terms of the service of teachers and employees of privately managed aided schools. Whereas for regulating certain terms of the service of the employees of the privately managed aided colleges, the State has enacted the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1979 Act") and notified the Rules "the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Rules, 2006" (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Rules"). The writ petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 11686 of 2004, which is the lead case, also prays for a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated 14.07.2004 passed by the State Government, declining to extend the benefit of the 1998 Rules.

4. Let us now examine the relevant provisions of the 1995 Act and the 2003 Rules. This Act deals with aided as well as unaided schools. The State provides financial aid to the recognized aided schools which is regulated by Section 6 of the 1995 Act. Certain terms & conditions of the service of its employees are regulated by Section 8 ibid, which are extracted as under:

"6. Aid to recognized schools -

(1) The Government pay to the prescribed authority, for disbursement of aid to recognised private schools such sums of money as the Government may consider necessary:

Provided that the schools already under grant-in-aid system, shall continue to receive such grant provided that they comply with the conditions as specified under sub-sections (1) to (5) of this section.

(2) The authority competent to grant the aid may stop, reduce or suspend aid for violation of any of the conditions prescribed in this behalf.

(3) The aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the school as may be prescribed.

(4) No payment, out of the aid given for salary, allowances and provident fund of employees of the school, shall be made for any other purpose.

(5) No un-recognised school shall be eligible to receive any aid or any benefit made available to private school by the Government or any other agency of the Government.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

8. Terms and conditions of service of employee of aided schools. (1) The Government may make rules regulating

(a) uniform code of service rules for employees in the State relating to pay, allowances, dismissal, removal, suspension, leave, conduct and discipline, provident fund, travelling allowance and other cognate matter;

(b) essential qualifications for various classes of employees; and

Provided that the Go

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(P&H) 579

The ACP Rules were not part of the salary grant, and the statutory provisions did not entitle non-teaching employees parity with government employees with respect to the ACP Rules.

Cases Referred (3)