210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-16451-CWP-2019 in/and CWP-17461-2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 HOME SECRETARY-CUM-SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION . . . . Petitioner Vs.

S.S. BHATTI AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ****

Present: Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate, Jr. Panel Counsel for Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. This is an old case pertaining to the year 2012. Main case is taken on board today itself.

2. The short point involved in the present case is whether the respondent No.1, who was admittedly appointed as a Principal of Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh on 01.04.1982 and was thereafter placed on regular basis vide order dated 21.01.1988, is entitled for the pay scale as admissible to the Principal of the College. The application filed by the respondent No.1 claiming the said salary has been allowed by the CAT with directions as under:

“17. The O.A. shall stand disposed of accordingly.

The impugned order, annexure A-1, shall stand invalidated. The applicant is held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.6300- 200-7300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.18400-5090-22400 (with minimum at Rs.19,400/-) from 1.1.1996.”

3. Further, it has been directed to grant two additional advance increments which are admissible to him and not denied by the present writ petitioner. Interest @9% has also been directed to be released.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as respondent No.1 had been working on ad hoc basis and was regularly appointed as Principal on 21.01.1988, there was no occasion for the CAT to direct the applicant/respondent No.1 to be entitled to the regular pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986.

5. Meeting with the said submissions, the counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the observations made by this Court as on 03.04.2017 while hearing the counsel for the petitioner are acceptable to him, and he would limit his prayer for being granted the pay scale of Principal from the date he acquired the necessary educational qualification for the post.

6. On 03.04.2017, this Court observed as under: “The controversy before the Tribunal was whether the first respondent was entitled to pre-revised pay scales of Rs.6300-200-7300 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and Rs.18400-500-

22400 w.e.f. 01.01.1996?

The above-stated pay scales were sought by the first respondent on the ground that he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Principal of Chandigarh College of Architecture from where he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1996. The petitioner-authorities apparently denied the above-stated pay scale on the ground that such higher pay scale for the post of Principal was admissible only to those who possess the qualification of Ph.D. We find from the record that even as per the petitioner-authorities, the first respondent acquired the qualification of Masters of Architecture from University of Queensland in 1983 and thereafter he got the Doctorate degree in Architecture in the year 1991. Assuming that the first respondent was not entitled to the pay scale, as demanded by him w.e.f. 01.01.1986, there appears to be no justification for not granting such pay scale from the year 1991 when the first respondent acquired the qualification of Doctorate in Architecture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to have instructions in this regard.

List on 28.09.2017.

Registry to inform the counsel for the respondent for the date fixed.”

7. Although the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment at that time, even as on today, they failed to submit any further submissions in this regard, and have left it for the Union of India to take a call. But the Union of India ha