216-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16774-2016 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 SUMAN LATA ......... Petitioner Versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate with Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to pay salary equivalent to her counterpart.

2. The petitioner joined respondent No.4-Vedic Girls High School as Lecturer (Political Science) in January’ 2002. She is having qualification of M.A, M. Phil, B.Ed, UGC pass. The respondent’s school is affiliated with CBSE Board and Education Department, U.T. Chandigarh. It is getting 95% grant in aid upto secondary level. The school is imparting education upto 10+2 standard.

3. The petitioner is claiming salary at par with her counterparts.

She is claiming that she is highly qualified still getting lump sum salary which is not equivalent to her counterparts. The respondent’s school as well as U.T. Chandigarh in its reply has declined claim of the petitioner on the ground that U.T. Administration granted permission to respondent’s school to start 10+2 classes subject to the condition that no additional staff will be provided, meaning thereby, no financial aid with respect to additional staff would be granted. The petitioner was appointed without seeking sanction from the U.T. Chandigarh and she was teaching classes upto 10+2, thus, Administration is not liable to grant financial aid as granted with respect to salary of other Teachers.

4. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s case is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in ‘Chandigarh Administration Vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali’, 2000 (2) SCC 42. The Supreme Court has clearly held that U.T. Administration is liable to grant aid even with respect to appointment of those Teachers who are teaching 10+1 and 10+2 classes which are not approved by U.T.

Administration with respect to financial assistance.

5. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate submit that school has not paid salary equivalent to other Teachers because they had not received aid from U.T. Administration.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on being confronted with aforecited judgment of Supreme Court expressed their inability to controvert applicability of said judgment to the instant case.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was appointed in 2002 and worked till 31.03.2023. She was not paid salary at par with her counterparts whereas she was paid lump sum. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Rajni Vali (supra) has settled the issue involved. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

" Dev Samaj Girls' Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh is a private educational institution duly recognised and receiving grant-in-aid from the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration since 1-12- 1967. Initially the School was imparting education up to Class 10. In the year 1988, it was decided to start 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the School and upgrade it to senior secondary level. The Director of Public Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh granted permission to the management for starting 11th and 12th classes in Humanities and Commerce, with the condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided for any additional staff. The classes were started on the recommendation of the Director of Public Instructions and the institution was granted affiliation by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, with effect from 1-5-1998. The corresponding classes in Dev Samaj Degree College, Chandigarh, were closed on t