IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.213 CWP-15881-2022 Decided on:-05.09.2025 Dr. Sheela Bathla …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.03.2022, Annexure P-6, whereby the second respondent has declined to count the past service rendered by the petitioner from 04.12.2002 to 04.06.2012 in the respondent SNRLJR Girls College Lohar Majra, Kurukshetra, for granting senior scale and selection grade of pay under Career Advancement Scheme (for short, ‘CAS’). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to count the service towards the benefits claimed and release the arrears with interest.

2. As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit in the respondent College “in the grade and usual allowances sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time”, vide appointment letter dated 01.12.2002, Annexure P-1. She joined service on 04.12.2002. At that time, the College was being run as a self-financed educational institution which was not getting any grant-in-aid from the Government. It is with effect from 05.06.2012, that the College became an aided institution. After rendering service for about eight years thereafter, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2020. Later, she submitted a request vide representation dated 21.05.2021, Annexure P-3, for counting her service rendered in the College prior to its coming under the grant-in-aid scheme, i.e., from 04.12.2002 to 04.06.2012, for grant of senior scale and selection grade under CAS. The request was rejected by the Directorate vide impugned order dated 24.03.2022, on the ground that during the period the petitioner was working on a fixed salary under the self-financed College, and such service could not be counted under CAS as per notification, dated 21.07.2011. These facts were recorded after examining the petitioner’s service book received from the College. The rejection led to filing of the instant petition.

3. Learned senior counsel contended that the representation was rejected on wrong grounds, as the petitioner had been appointed in regular grade and usual allowances sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The fact is apparent from her appointment letter, dated 01.12.2002 itself. And in case the College has not paid her salary in the regular scale of pay, she cannot be put to any loss on that account. The fact remained that she was entitled to get salary in the regular scale of pay in terms of the appointment letter, and had performed her duties with full devotion. Therefore, the service could not have been ignored for grant of CAS benefits. To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment, dated 25.09.2008, rendered by this Court in CWP-1477-2007 titled Tejvir and others v. State of Haryana and others.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel disputed the facts and contended that the petitioner had not been appointed in regular scale of pay. The College was being run as self-financed institution at the relevant time and the petitioner was being paid a fixed salary, as recorded in the impugned order itself. The University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’) notification regarding CAS has been adopted by the State Government vide notification dated 21.07.2011. As per paragraph 19.1 thereunder, previous service rendered in an equivalent grade only is to be counted for senior scale and selection grade. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the claimed relief.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the third and the fourth respondent, Governing Body and the College Princ