C.W.P. No.13347 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13347 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.09.2011 Nirmala Devi ……Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.4. ****** 1.Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ****** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4, vide which, the petitioner has been informed that she will be given only 25% salary w.e.f. 01.08.2010 with a further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant full salary to the petitioner. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Safai Karamchari on 01.04.1997 in regular pay scale with respondent No.4. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 23.03.1999. She approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, C.W.P. No.13347 of 2010 -1- Panipat and on 15.03.2007, the reference of the petitioner was decided in her favour and the Management was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with back-wages to the extent of 25% from the date of termination. On 13.04.2007, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was notified by the Labour Department, Haryana and after granting back-wages to the petitioner, she was allowed to join in the respondent No.4-School by the Management on 17.07.2007. Since the date of her joining, the petitioner was getting full salary as the 75% share of the salary was being released by the Government in the shape of grant-in-aid and 25% share of the salary was being paid by respondent No.4-Management. Thus, the petitioner was shocked when she received a letter dated 06.07.2010 from respondent No.4, stating therein, that as per the decision dated 27.06.2010 of the Managing Committee, she will get only 25% salary. Reply has been filed by the Management. As per the reply, one Nirmala Devi wife of Ramesh, was appointed as Sweeper vide appointment letter dated 09.08.1999, after the services of the petitioner were terminated on 23.03.1999 and that new Sweeper Nirmala wife of Ramesh is still working in the School against the only sanctioned post and, thus, in the absence of grant-in-aid for two posts of Sweeper, the respondent-Management was unable to pay the petitioner any more. Heard. It is not denied that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was decided in favour of the petitioner and the respondent-Management was directed to re-instate the petitioner with continuity of service and with back wages to the extent of 25% from the date of termination. The order of re-instatement means that status as it was before the termination also stands restored. It is admitted that the petitioner before her termination was working against a sanctioned post. At the time C.W.P. No.13347 of 2010 -1- when the respondents appointed Nirmala Devi wife of Ramesh, the Management was aware of the pending dispute between the petitioner and the Management qua her termination before the Tribunal. Thus, any appointment on the vacant post during the period shall have no bearing on the rights of the present petitioner. The respondent-Management is bound to pay the petitioner full salary as well as the arrears of the same as are required to be paid to an employee against sanctioned post which shall be paid forthwith. Allowed as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE 29.09.2011 gurpreet