Jitendra Chauhan JUDGMENT
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned eight writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved in the same.
2. Through the instant eight writ petitions, the petitioners have sought direction for grant of benefit of previous service rendered by them in the Govt. Aided Schools towards fixation of their pay on their joining in the Govt. schools in terms of provisions of Rule 4.4 of Punjab Civil Service Rules (for short "the PCS Rules") and as per Govt. Instructions dated 15.11.2000 (Annexure P-2) read with rule 69 of Grant-In-Aid Rules.
3. It is contended that the petitioners initially joined on various teaching posts in the Govt. Aided Schools on regular basis. They performed their duties with due diligence and devotion against regular sanctioned and aided posts. They had been drawing their pay fixations in terms of Punjab civil Services Rules in terms of Rule 69 of Grant-in-aid Rule. While working in the Aided Schools, the petitioners also earned annual increments from time to time. In pursuant to the selection of the petitioners in the Govt. Schools, the petitioners were given appointments in Govt. Schools through proper channel. Accordingly, the petitioners joined Govt. service without any break in their service. The particulars of service rendered by the petitioners are mentioned in Annexure P-1.
4. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioners is that while fixing their pay in the Govt. schools, increments earned by them while working in the Govt. aided Schools have not been taken into consideration and their pay has been fixed at the initial of the pay scale without protecting their pay which they had already drawn. In this regard, the learned counsel relies upon Rule 4.4 of the PCS Rules and rule 69 of the Grant-in-aid rules.
5. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioners for fixation of their pay is also covered by Govt. instructions dated 15.11.2000. (Annexure P-2). The previous service rendered by the petitioners has already been counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. The said claim of the petitioners has been considered in light of the judgment of this Court rendered in MANU/PH/4145/2010 : 2010(3) S.C.T. 450 : CWP No. 14238 of 1991 decided on 10.3.2010 titled as "Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab".
6. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the pay fixation of the employees working under the Govt. aided schools is not fixed in terms of Punjab Civil Service Rules and the instruction dated 15.11.2000 (Annexure P-2) are not applicable in their case because those are applicable in respect of employees of the Govt. Department or a body whether incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned by the Government. The pay of the petitioners was fixed as per Rule 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized School Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979.
7. Heard.
8. The learned counsels have placed reliance on rule 4.4 of the PCS Rules. The same are reproduced as under:-
"4.4 The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:-
(a) If he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post, or would hold a lien on such a post, had his lien not be suspended-
(i) When appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purpose of rule 4.13) than those attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of old post;
(c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a Government employee holding a post in a temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching........