J.S. Khehar, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 3, Neeta Kabotra was inducted in the service of R.R.M.K. Arya Mahila Maha Vidyalaya, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as the College) vide order dated 7.8.1985. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was on a purely temporary/adhoc basis. Subsequently, the post against which respondent No. 3 was appointed, was advertised. Respondent No. 3 had applied and was selected by a duly constituted Selection Board on 10.10.1985. On the same day, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Lecturer in Drawing and Painting on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 besides allowances admissible to employees of affiliated colleges. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 10.10.1985 reveals that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, and the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 3 has been duly approved by the Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, as well as, the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab.
(2.) Respondent No. 3 was awarded the Ph.D. degree on 30.6.1993. Having acquired the aforesaid qualification, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter dated 15.7.1993 to the College claiming pay in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000. The College recommended the claim of respondent No. 3 for being placed in the aforesaid scale to the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. On 20.6.1997, after having obtained various qualifications, the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab approved the case of respondent No. 3 for grant of pay in the scale of Rs. 3000/-5000. It would be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid grade was approved for being granted to respondent No. 3 despite the fact that the post against which respondent No. 3 was appointed, was a post for which the College was not being granted any aid by the State Government. In other words, the post occupied by respondent No. 3 was/is admittedly an un-aided post.
(3.) Pay scales were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. On the basis of revision of pay scales, regular Lecturers appointed in privately managed institutions against aided posts, who were earlier drawing salary in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000 were placed in the revised scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 Despite the revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, respondent No. 3 was paid salary in scale of Rs. 3000-5000. Respondent No. 3 continued to address representations to the College and the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab claiming salary in the revised scale. However, the aforesaid authorities failed to decide the claim of respondent No. 3. It is in these peculiar circumstances that respondent No. 3 approached this court by filing CWP No. 1309 of 2000 claiming the corresponding revised scale of Rs. 3000-5000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In other words, the claim of respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid writ petition was for payment of salary in the scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. This Court without going into the merits of the case disposed of the same with a direction to the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioner, claiming the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. On receipt of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 1309 of 2000, the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab first obtained comments of the petitioner - College with regard to the claim made by respondent No. 3. Having done so, the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab vide an order dated 30.6.2000 arrived at the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was entitled to pay in the scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The aforesaid order dated 30.6.2000 has been impugned by the petitioner - College through the instant petition.;