Disposed

Mehar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2009CWP/7663/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging notifications creating pay scale distinctions for teachers of specific languages and subjects were disposed. Petitions were allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitions' plea regarding subsequent challengeable notifications, applying precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed with directions to respondents to consider claim regarding Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998 within 5 months.

Mehar Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 11, 2009

¶4

MEHAR SINGH & ORS.

¶5

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

¶8

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Salil, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. OP Dabla, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶12

This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. CWP 7663 of 2001 (Mehar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another) and CWP 7664 of 2001 (Darshan Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another), as common questions of law and fact are involved.

¶13

The gist of the claim in both these petitions is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Notifications dated 17.2.1989, 3.5.1991, 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998, placed on record as Annexures P-12, P-

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001

¶15

¶16

13, P-14 and P-15, respectively, in CWP 7663 of 2001, and as Annexures P-14, P-15, P-16 and P-17, respectively, in CWP 7664 of 2001.

¶17

The short argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents cannot make a distinction in pay scales of teachers teaching Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages and Art and Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers. It has been impressed on the Court that vide Notification dated 17.2.1989, such a distinction was made while giving additional benefits to the teachers teaching Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages. The matter was carried to this Court while challenging Notification dated 17.2.1989. Considering the issue, this Court, while dealing with CWP 16380 of 1989 (Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab etc.) decided on 7.5.2009, quashed Notification dated 17.2.1989, thereby holding that the recommendations of the 3^rd Pay Commission are required to be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even Art and Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers would be entitled to the pay scale given to Classical and Vernacular Teachers, teaching Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that Notification dated 3.5.1991 was issued in amendment of Notification dated 17.2.1989. Again, a distinction was made between the two sets of teachers, as noticed above. Notification dated 3.5.1991 came to be challenged in a bunch of 4 petitions. While dealing with the main petition viz. CWP 14264 of 1991 (Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa and others v. The State of Punjab and another), decided on 9.11.2009, this Court quashed

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001

¶20

¶21

both Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in these two petitions challenge is not only to Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991 but also to subsequent Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that following the same ratio, even Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998 are required to be quashed.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991 have been quashed by this Court while dealing with Balbir Singh's case (supra) and Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa's case (supra), these petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in regard to their plea in challenge to Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998. The respondents would be required to consider the ratio as settled by this Court while dealing with Balbir Singh's case (supra) and Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa's case (supra), and pass appropriate orders within a period of 5 months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶24

November 11, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA) Kang JUDGE

¶25

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶26

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Mehar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Singh etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Nachhatar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Sanjeev Kumar Jhnaji Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others