Satish Menon vs Punjab School Education Board etc.

R.S. Mongia, J.—Petitioner was working as Subject Expert, in the Punjab School Education Board (in short P.S.E.B.). In response to an advertisement, petitioner applied through proper channel for the post of Director (Curricula) in the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Technical Education Board). Petitioner was selected and vide order dated 31.12.1996 annexure P-1, he was given appointment as Director (Curricula) in the Technical Education Board on contract basis for a period of three years, renewable from year to year basis. This appointment was against a specific assignment. The P.S.E.B. i.e., the parent department, passed an order on 31.12.1996 ordering the retention of lien of the petitioner for a period of one year in the P.S.E.B. The order reads as under :-

"On account of appointment of Shri Satish Kumar Menon, Subject Expert, Academic Branch, Punjab School Education Board in the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training as Director - Curriculum, he is relieved today on 31.12.1996 (AN).

The lien of Shri Satish Kumar Menon, Subject Expert is retained in this office for a period of one year."

After the expiry of one year the Technical Education Board extended the appointment of the petitioner for another year. Petitioner applied to his parent department i.e. P.S.E.B. for extension of lien on 24.2.1998. However, vide order dated 24.3.198 regarding extension in the period of lien, the P.S.E.B. informed the petitioner that the period of lien can be extended on a condition that if the Technical Education Board is ready to take the petitioner on deputation on the initial date of joining with Technical Education Board and also if the said Board was ready to pay leave, salary and pension contribution from the date of joining in that office. It further directed that this decision may be got from the Technical Education Board within a period of two weeks from the date of the issue of letter i.e. 24.3.1998. On the basis of the aforesaid communication, petitioner did apply to the Technical Education Board in terms of the letter of the P.S.E.B. However, vide letter dated 3.4.1998 the Technical Education Board informed the petitioner that the request made by the petitioner in terms of the letter of P.S.E.B. could not be acceded to and, therefore, the Chairman of the Technical Education Board had agreed to relieve the petitioner. Despite aforesaid letter, petitioner again requested the Technical Education Board to re- consider the matter. However, me request was again turned down. Then the petitioner was relieved from the duties from the Technical Education Board on 23.6.1998 vide annexure P-7. The following is the relieving order :-

"Dr. Satish Menon is hereby relieved of his present assignment of Director (Curriculum) from the office of the Board with effect from 23.6.1998 (afternoon) and advised to report for duty in the office of the Punjab School Education Board.

By Order

Dated : 23.6.1998, Chairman

Endst. No., Dated:

A copy is forwarded to the Chairman, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, for information with reference to discussion of Shri Y.S. Ratra, IAS, Chairman, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training with him today the 23.6.1998.

Sd/-

Dy. Controller (F&A)"

The petitioner reported back for duty with the P.S.E.B. on the same day i. e. 23.6.1998. An order was passed by the Secretary of the P.S.E.B. on 29.6.1998 copy annexure P-9 treating the period from 1.1.1997 to 23.6.1998 as leave without pay.

The order reads as under :-

"Order of Chairman, Punjab School Education Board"

The office order No. PSEB-IES-Estt.98/1692 dated 20.5.1998 is withdrawn.

Dr. Satish Menon, Subject Expert, who has submitted his joining report on 23.6.1998 (AN) in this office, is allowed to join this office from this date.

The period from 1.1.97 to 23.6.1998 (the period for which he remained in the Technical Board) he shall be considered on Leave without pay in this office.

Chandigarh., Jagjit Singh Sandhu 29.6.1998., Secretary, Punjab School Education Board" It is this order ihat has been made a subject matter of challenge in this petition.

Notice of motion was issued, reply has been filed.

In the reply filed on behalf of the P.S.E.B. in paragraph 11, it has been averred as under :-

"That the contents of para No. 11 of the writ petition are admitted. The petitioner applied through proper channel and was relieved by the PSEB to enable him to join as Director(C). He was treated to be on leave without pay for the period 1.1.1997 to 23.6.1998, since he served the Technical Education Board during this period and it was not prepared to pay leave salary and pension contributions to the P.S.E.B. in lieu of the service rendered by the petitioner in the Technical Education Board."

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for the period 1.1.1997 to 23.6.1998 the petitioner could not be treated on leave without pay inasmuch as the petitioner was relieved from the Technical Education Board on 23.6.1998 and it was on that very day he reported for duties with the P.S.E.B. After the completion of one year period with the Technical Education Board the said Board has extended the period of appointment, thereafter correspondence ensued between the P.S.E.B. and the petitioner and then between the petitioner and Technical Education Board. It was only after the petitioner''s request was declined by the Technical Education Board that he was informed that the said Board could not agree to the terms as suggested by the P.S.E.B. for relention of lien of the petitioner with the P.S.E.B. Till the matter was finally decided the petitioner could not have left Technical Education Board and it was only on being relieved that he joined P.S.E.B. on 23.6.1998. It was further argued that so far as the objection of the respondent, which has been mentioned in para-11 of the written statement, that it was because of the non-deposit of leave, salary and pension contribution by the Technical Education Board with the P.S.E.B. in lieu of the services rendered by the petitioner in the Technical Education Board, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner himself is prepared to contribute the same and in fact vide letter dated 7.4.1998 annexure P-12, petitioner had offered to do the same.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-P.S.E.B. argued on the same lines as defence taken in paragraph 11 of the written statement.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, which have been detailed above, the petitioner could not have been treated on leave without pay by P.S.E.B. We are not going into the question whether the objection of the respondent is valid or not i.e. non-contribution of the leave, salary and pension contribution to the P.S.E.B. by the Technical Education Board, because even if there could be any technical objection that is being removed by the petitioner vide annexure P-12 that he is ready and prepared to contribute the same. The possibility cannot be ruled out that during period after 1.1.1997 and till he was relieved by the Technical Education Board, the leave, salary and pension contribution had not been made because the matter of retention of the petitioner in the Technical Education Board was under consideration.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the order annexure P-9 dated 29.6.1998 subject to the petitioner''s depositing the leave, salary and pension contribution. This the peti- tioner would deposit within two months of the respondent''s telling the petitioner in writing as to what is the amount to be deposited by him.

Copy of this order, attested by the Special Secretary, of this Court be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.

Petition allowed.