Disposed

Subhadra Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2009CWP/18950/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to grant the petitioner the benefit of the Assured Progression Scheme upon completion of 24 years of service, challenging a denial based on poor student results. The court directed respondents to consider the case under specific government instructions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's case under instructions dated 21.08.2009 and pass orders, if student results were the only impediment.

Subhadra Sharma Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 18950 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 18950 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 09, 2009

¶5

Subhadra Sharma

¶6

.........PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of proficiency step up to the petitioner on completion of 24 years of service in the light of instructions dated 21.08.2009 that has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It has further been pleaded that Annexure P-1 dated 08.03.2006 be quashed.

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice.

¶15

On the request of counsel for the parties and in view of the limited issue raised, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself Heard.

¶16

C.W.P. No. 18950 of 2009

¶17

¶18

Heard.

¶19

It has been brought out that the petitioner joined Education Department on 09.11.1973 on ad hoc basis as S.S. Mistress. Her services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977. In the service record of the petitioner viz. annual confidential reports, the petitioner has either been graded as good or very good. The benefit of Assured Progression Scheme (for short 'ACP') was denied to the petitioner vide impugned order Annexure P-1.

¶20

Perusal of impugned order indicates that the benefit of ACP scheme has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the result of the students taught by the petitioner was not good and, therefore, the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefit cannot be considered.

¶21

Learned counsel states that the issue has been considered by the respondents in the light of the Punjab Education Service Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. All the employees who had been ignored for promotion or had been denied benefit under ACP scheme on account of poor result of the students taught by them, have been granted the relief de hors the result of the students taught by them.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent states that indeed the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the context of instructions dated 21.08.2009 placed on record as Annexure P-4.

¶23

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the context of instructions dated 21.08.2009 Annexure P-4 and pass orders in accordance thereof. In case the only impediment in grant of benefit under ACP scheme is the poor result of the students, the requisite relief would be granted to the

¶24

C.W.P. No. 18950 of 2009

¶25

¶26

petitioner. Necessary orders be passed within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶27

09.12.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE

¶28

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶29

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Subhadra Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhadra Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Randhawa and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Roy and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kulbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kans Raj and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.

Is Chahal Vs State of Punjab & Anr.