Chandigarh, Feb. 25 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has ruled that resource persons, engaged by the UT administration under the Centre's Samagra Shiksha Project, are entitled to dearness allowance (DA) at par with other contractual workers of the administration. The HC bench of justiceJagmohan Bansal quashed the July 2022 order of the administration, whereby their salaries were reduced and recovery notices issued. The court has now directed the UT to release DA at the rate of 189% with effect from July 1, 2021. The arrears, at the first instance, shall be paid within three months (fromFebruary 24), failing which, the UT would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the said period, the court said, adding that the administration would be at liberty to recover the same from the Centre. The court was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed by resource persons (academic and special education) hired in 2019-20, who had challenged the July 2022 decision. The administration had in August 2016 decided that contractual employees would also be entitled to DA. In the case of regular employees too, the DA was increased from time-to-time. However, a dispute arose when the DA was revised from 164% to 189% in July 2021 and the same was paid to Samagra Shiksha Project employees as well. In 2022, recovery notices were slapped after Centre did not allocate requisite funds. The court noted that respondents are unable to counter that up to 2021, petitioners were getting DA at par with other school teachers. However, the same was brought down to 164% on account of shortage of funds sanctioned by the Centre in 2022. The court observed that the dispute has erupted because UT is of the opinion that 100% cost of the Samagra Shiksha Project should be borne by Centre as it is a central project. The Centre, meanwhile, is of the opinion that they have allocated specific budget to each state and UT and if there is any deficiency, it has to be borne by state government or UT. "The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of misunderstanding between two departments or authorities. The respondents are duty bound to pay differential amount to petitioners like other employees," the court remarked, adding that in case of a state, the Centre could claim that the burden should be borne by the stategovernment, however, in the case of Chandigarh this "argument does not sustain" as it is directly controlled by the Centre....