Punjab and Haryana High Court raps state for denying vacation wages to guest faculty

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 8

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the state of Haryana for flouting the law and instructions on payment of remuneration for the entire academic year to the guest faculty. The admonition came as Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the high court directed the state and its functionaries to release remuneration for the vacation period and pay Rs 50,000 costs to a petitioner working as guest faculty. For the purpose, Justice Dahiya set a six-week deadline.

Action deprecated

Instead of abiding by the law, the respondents have chosen to flout the same by taking refuge in the instructions on the plea that the same were not applicable at the relevant time. The plea is groundless, since applicability of the instructions was never in doubt. This makes the respondents’ action reprehensible, which is deprecated. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Justice Dahiya was hearing a petition filed against the state and other respondents by Sapna. Her counsel contended that the petitioner had not been paid salary for the vacation from May 4, 2020, to July 6, 2020, on the plea that she had not worked during the period following practical examinations, preparatory holidays and summer break.

Opposing the plea, the state counsel submitted that instructions in the matter dated December 22, 2022, were applicable from the notification date only. It also disentitled the petitioner to remuneration for the vacation as it pertained to a period prior to the notification.

After hearing the rival contentions and going through the documents, Justice Dahiya observed that the instructions dated September 11, 2019, issued by the state government clearly stipulated that the guest faculty/instructors were to be paid remuneration for the entire academic year of 12 months.

The requirement had only been clarified and reiterated by subsequent instructions issued in December 2022 in supersession of the earlier instructions. The instructions were in force during the vacation period for which the petitioner was claiming remuneration. She was, as such, entitled to the claim.

Justice Dahiya added that the high court in the case of “Sumit Choudhary and others versus the state of Haryana and others” had already held that the similarly placed guest faculty, working in the department concerned, was entitled to remuneration for the vacation period.