IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7655 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 24, 2010. Joginder Singh Batra and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners are serving/retired Lecturers (College Cadre) of the Education Department, Government of Punjab. They were initially appointed in the year 1979 on purely adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the appointment of regular incumbents on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. As there used to be a break in the adhoc tenures of the Lecturers like the petitioners before and after every academic session, the matter was taken up by them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the C.W.P.No .7655 OF 2008 2 following order dated 2.9.1983 was passed:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances the Court do feel that the just and fair order would be that the petitioners who were appointed on adhoc basis would be continued until the government makes regular appointments on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Meanwhile, the petitioners will get their salary for the vacation period. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.” Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were also retained on adhoc basis without any break till their adhoc services were regularized by the Government under a policy decision. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been paid salary for the adhoc period for which they actually worked. They have now approached this Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay salary for the gap periods also, namely, the period during which they used to be relieved and re-appointed until the above-reproduced order dated 2.9.1983 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Their above stated claim has been turned down by the authorities vide the impugned order, giving rise to this writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned order alongwith record perused. The petitioners' claim is primarily based upon the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), C.W.P.No .7655 OF 2008 3 Sangrur in the case of one adhoc lecturer Smt.Bimal Singla. They have also relied upon an administrative order dated 18.2.2002, issued by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges ), Punjab, asking the Principal of Government Brijindra College, Faridkot, to fix the pay of two lecturers after counting the gap period of vacations and that no recovery be effected from their salaries. In my considered view, both the pleas taken on behalf of the petitioners are legally misconceived and without any factual basis. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on adhoc basis for a fixed tenure. However, owing to the mal-practice of re-employing the adhoc lecturers after break of summer/winter vacations so as to deprive them of the salary of vacation period, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly deprecated the said practice and issued Instructions vide order dated 2.9.1983 to allow them to continue on adhoc basis till regular appointments on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission were to be made. Further directions were also issued that the “adhoc lecturers like the petitioners will get the salaries for the vacation period”. The afore-stated directions were essentially prospective in nature. The last-breaks, if any, the details of which are also not on record, were never assailed by the petitioners nor any directions in relation thereto were issued. At this belated stage when the impugned breaks do not give rise to any fresh cause of action and even a Civil Suit for recovery would be barred by limitation, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under C.W.P.No .7655 OF 2008 4 Article 226 of the Constitution. As regards the two instances contained in the DPI's letter dated 18.2.2002 (Annexure P-8), suffice it to observe that two wrongs cannot make one right. If an undeserving benefit has been granted to one or two lecturers as stated by the petitioners, it does not make out a case of discrimination within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 24-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE