IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15292 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 28, 2010 Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction that the Punjab School Teachers’ Re-employment (Repeal) Act, 2009, notified on 31.8.2009 (P-5) be declared ultra vires and illegal, insofar as, it takes the right of already re-employed teachers up to the succeeding academic session i.e. March 31 in the succeeding year. It is conceded position that the petitioner superannuated from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.5.2009. He was re-employed in pursuance to the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab School Teachers’ Re- employment Act, 2006. The aforesaid Act was repealed by another Act of similar name, notified on 31.8.2009 (P-5). The petitioner has pointed out that CWP No. 15292 of 2009 (O&M) the District Education Officer has directed all the schools to relieve the re- employed teachers on the ground that the Act of 2006 has been repealed with effect from 31.8.2009 and they are not to be paid any amount for the re- employed period after 31.8.2009. The aforesaid letter was addressed to all the School Heads of the Government Senior Secondary and High Schools on 14.10.2009 (A-1). In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner was relieved by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Lalouri Kalan, District Ludhiana, on 19.10.2009 (A-2). Mr. Ranjivan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents that his salary be paid for the period from 1.9.2009 to 19.10.2009 as the petitioner has worked during that period. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, could not successfully controvert the aforesaid assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, we accept the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and direct the respondent State to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period he has actually worked i.e. from 1.9.2009 to 19.10.2009. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition as well as the miscellaneous applications are disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 28, 2010 JUDGE 2 CWP No. 15292 of 2009 (O&M) Pkapoor 3