Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinderjit Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Another on 23 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127517
CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M) & connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(225/10) CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2024
Jaswinder Kaur and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
2. CWP No.11886-2015(O&M)
....................Petitioners
Lakhwinder Kaur and others
versus
State of Punjab and others ..................Respondents
3. CWP No.14311-2015(O&M)
...............Petitioners
Manjeet Kaur and others
versus
State of Punjab and others ................Respondents
4. CWP No.18068-2015(O&M)
Gurmeet Singh and others ..............Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others .............Respondents
5. CWP No.23868-2015(O&M)
Balwinderjit Kaur and others .................Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others .............Respondents
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2024 22:37:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127517
CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M) & connected cases
6. CWP No.2905-2017(O&M)
Naresh Pal .................Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
7. CWP No.6810-2017(O&M)
Lalita and others .................Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
8. CWP No.20663-2015(O&M)
Shobha Joshi ..............Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ................Respondents
9. CWP No.20720-2015(O&M)
Rama Rani ...............Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ..................Respondents
10. CWP No.7454-2016(O&M)
Narinder Kaur and others .............Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ................Respondents
11. CWP No.8284-2020(O&M)
Baldev Kaur .................Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2024 22:37:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127517
CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M) & connected cases
12. CWP No.22910-2016(O&M)
Balbir Singh and others ...........Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another .........Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present Mr. Parvesh K.Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-2717-2019.
Mr. Kriteka Sheokand, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-22910-2016.
Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate,
for petitioner no.7 in CWP-22910-2016.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate,
Mr. Akshat Kalia, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2905-2017.
Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 11886, 14311, 18068, 23868,
20663 and 20720-2015 and CWP Nos. 8284 of 2020.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-6810-2017.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate,
with Mr. Ashish Goklany, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-7454-2016.
Mr.Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J, (ORAL)
1. By this common order, 12 writ petitions, the details of which have
been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the
same question of law on similar facts.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the respondents
are denying the petitioner(s) the benefit of the pay scale admissible to the cadre
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127517
CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M) & connected cases
of Classical and Vernacular Teachers, which act on the part of the respondents is
arbitrary and illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that though, at one
given point of time, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Civil Appeal No.1382 of 1999, titled State of Punjab versus Sainder Jeet
Kaur, decided on 18.03.2004 it was held that Sewing teachers and Tabla
players and Tailoring teachers are not the part of the cadre of the Classical and
Vernacular teachers but, after the said judgment, various acts, including the
seniority list and grant of benefits to the certain similarly situated candidates
show that, the State itself started recognizing the petitioners as the part of
Classical and Vernacular teachers.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner intend to approach the
respondent / State by placing before them all the record to show that for all
intent and purposes, the petitioners are being treated as the part of Classical and
Vernacular teachers so as to entitle them the pay scale admissible to the said
cadre and the respondents be directed to decide the same by passing appropriate
speaking order on all the aspects, which will be raised in the representation.
5. Learned State counsel submits that in case, any such representation
is filed by the petitioners, the same will be decided in accordance with law and
in case it is found feasible to grant the relief, the same will be granted.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that
benefit granted to some of the teachers, is being withdrawn and recoveries are
being made from their salaries.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the
petitioners is that no recovery can be done as there was no misrepresentation on
the part of the petitioners. Reliance is being place upon the judgment of the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127517
CWP NO.2717-2019(O&M) & connected cases
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010, titled as
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, decided on 02.05.2022.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the above-
mentioned judgment will also be taken into account to record a finding, whether
any recovery can be done from the petitioners who were given pay scale
inadvertently, which was withdrawn from them.
9. Present petitions are disposed of in the above stated terms.
10. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed in terms of
above.
11. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of aforementioned
connected petition.
23.09.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
