CWP No.10592 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10592 of 1989 Date of decision 23 .4.2009 Dharam Pal Sethi and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr.Subhash Ahuja ,Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing memo dated 20.12.1979 (P.7) whereby the Director of Public Instructions- respondent no.2 had sent a letter to the various functionaries of the Education Department of the State intimating that some of the teachers have been given the lecturers grade on the basis of letter dated 28.9.1979 despite the fact that no clarification has been received in this regard from the Finance Department. Accordingly, the names of the candidates were requisitioned to the office of respondent no.2 for appropriate action. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the first amendment made in the Punjab State Education Class III (School cadre) (First Amendment) Rules, 1980 (P.9). The claim made by the petitioners is necessarily based on letter dated 23.7.1957 (P.1) linking the qualification with the pay scale. However, the aforesaid letter was withdrawn on 19.2.1979 (P.5). Accordingly a direction was issued that no teacher would be granted pay according to the CWP No.10592 of 1989 2 qualifications and their pay scales were required to be in accordance with the post to which they were appointed. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned State counsel at the outset has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and another v. Kamal Singh Saharawat and others 1999(4) RSJ 307 and argued that the matter is squarely covered against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the petitioners are not entitled to claim higher pay on the scales of pay applicable to lecturers merely on the basis of acquiring post graduate qualification while working on the post of teachers. The aforesaid proposition of law could not be successfully disputed by Mr. Subhash Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Such being the legal position there is no escape from the conclusion that the writ petition is wholly mis-conceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) 23.4.2009 Judge okg