C.W.P No. 15824 of 1990 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 15824 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : July 08, 2010 Jarnail Singh and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking higher scale in view of their higher qualifications in consonance with the letter (Annexure P-1). It is not disputed that by letter dated 19.2.1979 (Annexure P-3), it was specified that the grant of higher grade would be restricted only to those teachers who were in service on that date and possessed higher qualification. At one point of time, a dispute had arisen as to whether persons who were otherwise eligible but were not in regular service would C.W.P No. 15824 of 1990 (O&M) ::2:: be entitled to the benefit of the letter (Annexure P-1). A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4515 of 1986, decided on 2.8.1988, held that even if a person was employed on adhoc basis on the cut off date, he/she would be eligible for the benefit of higher grade, if otherwise eligible therefor. As per the chart given in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it transpires that only petitioner No.1 fulfilled the twin criteria of being in service as well as having acquired higher qualification on the cut off date. Counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that except for petitioner No.1, none of the other petitioners fulfilled the twin criteria of being in service as well as of possessing higher qualification on the cut off date viz 19.2.1979 since some of them had joined after 1979 or some of them though in service acquired the higher qualification after 1979. In this view of the matter, this petition qua petitioner No.1 deserves to be allowed, while qua others it would stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs. As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 08, 2010. JUDGE `kk'