Judgment:
M.R. Agnihotri and Amarjeet Chaudhary, JJ.
1. Petitioner Smt Uttra Kumari joined the Haryana Education Department on 3rd February, 1969, as J. B. T. Teacher. During the service she also passed M. A. in 1976 and B. Ed examination in 1980. In 1984 she was selected by the Beas Sutlaj Link Project, Sundernagar, as B. Ed Mistress on deputation. Accordingly, on 7th March, 1984, under order of the Director of School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, her service were placed at the disposal of B.S.L Project, Sundernagar. It was further stipulated in the same order that she was to be treated on deputation like other employees from the State of Haryana but was not entitled to any deputation allowance or extra pay, etc.
2. Later on when the State of Haryana released the revised grade of pay to all B. Ed qualified teachers, the petitioner was also granted the Masters' scale on the basis of her academic qualifications that is M.A., B. Ed by the State of Haryana, with effect from the date she pay grade the qualification, that is 23rd June 1980. Resultantly, the pay grade of the petitioner, which was earlier Rs. 525-1050 was revised to Rs. 1400-2600 with effect from 1st January 1986. There- upon, the petitioner represented to the Bhakra Beas Management Board (successor to the Beas Sutlej Link Project), which is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, for the grant of the same pay scale to her as was being granted by the B.B.M.B. to other mistresses in their employment. The request was however declined on the plea that the revised grade could not be granted to the petitioner as she was not entitled to claim any benefit whatsoever of the post of mistress while working on that post as she had not been posted as such with the B.B.M.B. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the same pay scale to the petitioner which is being granted by the B. B. M. B. to a Mistress in their employment
3. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the impugned action is sought to be justified on the ground that as the petitioner at the time of her deputation to the then Beas Sutlej Link Project had clearly undertaken that she would not claim any benefit whatsoever while working on the post, she was now estopped by her conduct to claim any monetary benefit.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings, we are of the considered view that the plea taken by the respondents is wholly unsustainable. The fact that the petitioner had undertaken at the time of her deputation to B.S.L.P., that she would not claim any benefit whatsoever while working on the post of mistress, could not be interpreted to mean that even if the pay scales were revised or some increase in Dearness Allowance or in some other allowance is announced by the Central Government or the State Government or for that matter by the B.B.M.B. the same shall not be admissible to the petitioner for, the reason that she was not to draw any benefit while working with the Board. The only object of submitting such an undertaking by a servant while proceeding on deputation is that he or she shall not be entitled to any deputation allowance or extra pay or any other monetary benefit attached to the post while on deputation. Rather, if an employee gives even this undertaking at the time of deputation that he or she was willing to work in the existing pay scale or even on some consolidated pay, and later on due to inflationary trend or any other reason, the Government announces an ad hoc increase or some financial benefit to its employees such an employee working on deputation shall be entitled to the receipt of the same in the same manner and at the same rate at which the same is admissible to other employees, no matter he or she had submitted an undertaking not to draw any benefit while proceeding on deputation.
5. In the instant case, the position is very simple. The petitioner is M.A., B.Ed., and is working as B.Ed. Teacher. In her present State of Haryana she was entitled to draw the pay scale which was admissible to other M.A. B.Ed. Teachers Since she has been selected and brought on deputation to the Beas Sutlej Link Project (now Bhakra Beas Management Beard), she will be entitled to the pay scale admissible to the B.Ed. Teachers in the employment of B.B.M.B. Any other interpretation would lead discriminatory results violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
6. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner the pay scale of B.Ed. Teachers, that is, Rs. 1640-2925, which is, the present pay scale being granted by the Bhakra Beas Management Board to the Masters/Mistresses in their employment. Necessary benefits of pay-fixation, grant of increments, arrears, etc. on the basis thereof shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months.