IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8144 of 1991 Date of decision : 12.08.2011 Om Parkash and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners had filed writ petition directly to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondents in not paying salary to the petitioners, who were employed under Adult Education Scheme. The petitioners had also made grievance that the Adult Education Scheme was prematurely and arbitrarily dropped and abandoned and, thus, leaving the petitioners in lurch and to starve without providing any alternative employment. This writ petition, however, was transferred to this Court on 09.05.1991 for treating the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was, accordingly, numbered as now assigned and was admitted on 19.08.1991. The writ petition has now come up for hearing. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for time to make submissions on the ground that he has just been engaged in this case. Civil Writ Petition No. 8144 of 1991 -2- I have gone through the writ petition. It is brought to my notice that scheme of Adult Education has already been brought to an end. This action is also under challenge in this writ petition. Once the scheme has been abandoned, the petitioners, apparently, would not have any right to seek continuation of such scheme as the discretion to continue or to discontinue the scheme is not justiciable. Counsel for the petitioners, however, points out that three of the petitioners were subsequently absorbed in the Education Department whereas two petitioners could not be so adjusted. The petitioners have also made a claim for grant of salary for the period they had worked with the Government in the Adult Education Scheme. At this belated stage, adjustment of those petitioners, who could not be earlier so adjusted in 1991, may not sound fair. This prayer, at this stage, after nearly 20 years, in my view would otherwise become infructuous. The petitioners, however, may have a claim to pursue the prayer for non-payment of salary. Let the petitioners make a representation to the respondents in this regard giving out details of the salary for the period, for which they were not paid, which according to them, would be due to them. The respondent-State shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. August 12, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE