IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17189 of 2006 Date of decision: 1st November, 2010 Vasdev … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 23rd May, 2006, the Governor of Punjab promulgated the Punjab School Teachers Re-employment Ordinance, 2006 (Punjab Ordinance No.2 of 2006), which stated that to prevent disruption of studies of students in the schools on account of retirement of teachers on attaining the age of superannuation in the midst of the academic session, all such teachers working in the State of Punjab who would otherwise have retired from service on completion of fifty eight years of normal age of superannuation on any day falling between 1st April of the year and the last day of the month of February of the succeeding year shall, except in case of otherwise voluntary option, continue in service and shall be deemed to be re-employed after the date of superannuation upto the 31st day of the following month of March. Later-on, vide Notification (Annexure P-1) this Ordinance was made an Act. It is also the stand of the State Government that thereafter vide Notification (Annexure R-1) dated 11th October, 2006, the Ordinance was repealed. Civil Writ Petition No.17189 of 2006 Case of the petitioner is that he retired on 30th April, 2006, therefore, he should have been allowed to continue in service till 31st March, 2007. In the present petition, a prayer has been made that the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service and be awarded reemployment upto 31st March, 2007 in terms of the Ordinance (Annexure P-1). To controvert the claim of the petitioner, in the written statement filed, the State has stated that the petitioner retired from service on 30th April, 2006 and the Ordinance was notified on 23rd May, 2006, therefore, the Ordinance cannot have a retrospective operation and before the Ordinance could be notified, the petitioner had already retired. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. It was further stated that since the petitioner had retired before the issuance of Ordinance (Annexure P-1), the post vacated by him was filled-up and thus, no vacancy is in existence. It is well settled that the Ordinance (Annexure P-1) cannot have retrospective operation. Before the Ordinance (Annexure P-1) was issued, the petitioner had already retired, therefore, the clock cannot be put back to the advantage of the petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 1, 2010 rps 2