Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Bala And Ors vs State Of Punjab Through The Secy. To ... on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039952
2024:PHHC:039952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206
CWP-6502-1998 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Saroj Bala and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab Through The Secy. to Govt. and Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the petitioner the benefit of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-3490-1991, upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its decision dated 15.04.1996.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners, who were working as JBT teacher, had acquired the required qualification of Gyani/Prabhakar. In terms of the instructions dated 23.07.1957, Annexure P-1, they were granted the pay scale of classical and vernacular teachers. It is on 17.02.1989, the pay scale of the C&V teachers were revised, however, the petitioners were not granted the same. This issue decided by this Court in CWP-3490-1991, granting relief to similarly situated employees, vide judgment dated 06.09.1991, Annexure P-4, against which the SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgments dated 15.04.1996, Annexure P-5 as well as review petition on 24.07.1997, Annexure P- 6, whereafter it was implemented vide orders dated 28.08.1997 and 27.09.1997, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 03:50:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039952 CWP-6502-1998 (O&M) -2- Annexure P-8 and P-10. In the reply to the legal notice as also in the written statement, plea of pending of Civil Appeal Nos.6523-6524 of 1995 titled as State of Punjab vs. Suresh Chander and Others, was taken, which now stands dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.04.2003. He thus, on instructions, submits that respondents may be directed to decide the claim based on the above in a time bound manner.
3. Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer made.
4. In view of the aforesaid and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners, taking note of the judgments referred to above as also the orders dated 28.08.1997 and 27.09.1997, Annexure P-8 and P-10, within a period of 6 months and if found entitled, necessary benefits be granted to the petitioners forthwith.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
20.03.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 03:50:55 :::