Judgment:
CWP No.22392 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22392 of 2011 Date of Decision:
16. 07.2013 Pawan Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.O.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana.”
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioner retired from service of the Education Department, Haryana on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.1996.
He lastly held the post of Lecturer in English and retired from Government College, Saffidon.
A scheme has been evolved in the State of Haryana due to shortage of Lecturers in various subjects in Government Colleges by appointing Guest Lecturers to cope with teaching workload not feasible with existing staff.
The services of the petitioner were thus availed as a Guest Lecturer post retirement for the academic sessions 2006-07 to 2010- 11 in Govt.
Post Graduate College, Naraingarh, Ambala.
He demitted that engagement on 28.02.2011.
This petition has been brought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner emoluments for the summer vacations i.e.for the month of May and June Mittal Manju 2013.07.29 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22392 of 2011 -2- for the years 2008-09 & 2009-10 as Guest Lecturer.
Those summer vacations remuneration is not payable to Guest Lecturers but whenever Guest Lecturers have infact worked in a college during vacations as per directions of the Principal of the college concerned, the consolidated emoluments for that period are liable to be paid.
This policy is reflected in the letter of the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana, Panchkula (P-1) addressed to all Principals of Government Colleges in the State of Haryana.
The right to emoluments during summer vacations flows from performance of duty.
The question whether the petitioner has worked during summer vacations is, therefore a pure question of fact.
In the written statement filed by the Principal Govt.
Post Graduate College, Naraingarh, Ambala dated 31.03.2012, it has been asserted that the petitioner was never asked by the Principal to work in the vacation period and the petitioner never worked during this period.
Therefore, he is not entitled for payment of honorarium for the period of summer vacations/autumn break.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana would refer to the Government Policy dated 07.08.2008 (R-2) which lays down guidelines for engagement of guest faculty.
He would point out to terms and conditions 3 and 10 which read as follows:- “3.
The guest faculty, so appointed may be paid @Rs.100/- per period (of 45 minutes duration) subject to the maximum of Rs.10,000/- per month and 200/- per period subject to Rs.15,000/- per month for P.G.classes.”
“10.
The honorarium of autumn break/winter break is not admissible to the lecturer appointed as Guest faculty.”
When terms and conditions of Guest Lecturers are laid down, no claim can be raised for summer vacations except for the duration of Mittal Manju 2013.07.29 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22392 of 2011 -3- periods actually taught at the rates specified in Condition 3.
If the petitioner accepted the position of a Guest Lecturer, he would remain bound by the terms and conditions laid down in the memo dated 07.08.2008.
Mr.O.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has found it hard to wriggle out of the contractual terMs.In the replication, there is a general denial that the petitioner did not work during the summer vacations period but no specific denial with material particulars of work performed.
This bald statement unfortunately is not prefixed or suffixed with concrete evidence of the periods taught during summer vacations for the period claimed.
In absence of specific denial, the statement of the Principal of the College has to be believed on the principle of non-traverse.
A vague denial amounts to admission.
The claim of the petitioner based on certain letters received by third parties under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot base claim or be relied upon to agree that the petitioner had a vested or accrued right to summer vacation honorarium while serving at Government College, Saffidon.
Even if it is assumed that a college in Yamunanagar has paid salary for summer vacations to Guest Lecturers for the year 2010-11 it could not have any material bearing on this case since it is not forthcoming from Annexure P-3 whether work was performed or not.
As a matter of fact, no payment could be made to Guest Lecturers contrary to policy instructions and the terms and conditions of the contract.
Sh.
Amit Bansal, an Advocate of Jagadhari who is not the petitioner was informed by letter (Annexure P-6/3) placed on record with the replication that only one Guest Lecturer from whom work was got done during vacations has been given “salary”.
and payment of “salaries”.
to any Mittal Manju 2013.07.29 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22392 of 2011 -4- Guest Lecturer during the session 2011 was stopped by orders of the superior authority.
Resultantly, this writ petition is found devoid of merit and is dismissed.
No costs.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 16 07.2013 manju Mittal Manju 2013.07.29 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh