Allowed

Jaipal Singh and Ors. v. Dpi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CWP/6059/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, ad hoc teachers regularised between 1979 and 1986 without summer break, claimed arrears of summer vacation salary and allowances. Court held they are entitled to payments and directed respondents to pay within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are entitled to arrears of salary and allowances for summer vacations; payment must be made within three months of receipt of this judgment.

Jaipal Singh and Ors. Vs Dpi and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.6059 of 1994

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6059 of 1994 Date of decision:15.05.2012

¶5

Jai Pal Singh & others .....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Director Public Instructions, Haryana & others .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners,

¶10

Ms.Aakanksha Sawhney, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

G .S.Sandhawalia J. (Oral)

¶12

The present 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 implement the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No.262 of 1986 and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.07.1990 delivered in Civil Appeal arising out of

¶13

S.L.P. No.6761 of 1989 titled Zile Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana &

¶14

others decided on 23.07.1990 (Annexure P-2).

¶15

The case of the petitioners, who are 25 in number, is that they are working as JBT teachers, Maths teachers, S.S.Masters, Science Master and some who are promoted from JBT teacher to S.S.Master and S.S.Mistress in different Government schools of Haryana in Kaithal district at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis between 1973 to 1984 and were regularised between 01.01.1979 to 01.11.1986. The petitioners were relieved from service prior to summer vacations without any relieving orders and were asked to re-join the same school after the re-opening of the school without giving any break in the service. Accordingly, the petitioners were not paid the salaries for the

¶16

¶17

CWP No.6059 of 1994

¶18

summer vacation from the year 1979 to 1986 and their services were regularised between the period 01.01.1979 to 01.11.1986. It has also been averred that they were denied the benefit of summer vacations salary and allowances despite the fact that they were similarly situated as the regularly appointed teachers and were also asked to attend seminars during the summer vacations period along with the regularly appointed teachers. The petitioners have been regularised but were never given the benefit of summer vacations period and the petitioners had represented before the respondents but no action had been taken on the representations, the details of the representations, 13 in number from 05.02.1978 to 10.02.1994 have been specifically mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rattan Lal & others etc. Vs. State of Haryana & others AIR 1987 (SC) 478 in support of their case wherein it was observed as under:

¶19

“We strongly deprecate the policy of the State government under which ad hoc teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacations by restoring to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These 'ad hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacations as long as they held the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.”

¶20

The petitioners have also appended judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.262 of 1986 titled Ram Avtar Yadav & others Vs. The State of Haryana & others decided on 26.09.1987 wherein similar relief had been granted after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court upon the case of Rattan Lal (supra). Reliance has also been placed upon subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zile

¶21

CWP No.6059 of 1994 3

¶22

Singh's case (supra) wherein also, the salary from 1971 to 1979 was directed to be paid to the similarly situated teachers.

¶23

Notice of motion was issued in the present writ petition on 12.05.1994 by this Court and the petition was admitted on 31.10.1994 on the statement of the State Counsel that law of limitation would apply and the arrears which were barred by limitation could not be paid. However, even today, no written statement has been filed by the State. As noticed above, the petitioners have placed reliance upon representations filed by the petitioners from 01.11.1986 till 10.02.1994 and have placed reliance upon a number of representations. The State has not filed any reply to controvert the said representations despite the fact that a period of 16 years has elapsed. Accordingly, the contents, as mentioned in the said paragraphs in the writ petition has to be treated as having been admitted by the State, and therefore, the issue of limitation would not arise especially when once the petitioners were agitating for their claim time and again but the State choose to close its eyes to the representations. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Zile Singh (supra) granted relief in similar circumstances for the period 19711979 in the year 1990 and issued necessary directions.

¶24

Accordingly, keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rattan Lal's case (supra), the relief is liable to be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents that the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of pay and allowances for the period of summer vacations. The amount so due shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the receipt of this judgment.

¶25

Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶26

(G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE

¶27

15.05.2012 sailesh

Jaipal Singh and Ors. v. Dpi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal Singh and Ors. v. Dpi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jaspinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manphool Singh Vs Maharishi Dayanand University

Kirat Kaushal Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Veeran Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Baldev Raj Bathla, Ss Master Vs State of Haryana & Ors.