C.W.P. No. 10294 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10294 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 09, 2009 Sukhwinder Lal and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing clause 15 of the appointment letter dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). 2. It has been contended that the petitioners, on the recommendation of District Selection Committee, Punjab, were appointed as S.S. Master (petitioner no. 1) and Science Master (petitioner no. 2) and later on promoted to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Education, Punjab. 3. Respondent no. 1 issued an advertisement for regular appointment of 1314 school teachers which included 431 Head Masters/Head Mistresses. C.W.P. No. 10294 of 2009 2 The petitioners being eligible, applied for the post of Headmaster and were selected. Letter of appointment in the form of Annexure P-3 has been issued. The petitioners are aggrieved by condition no. 15 of appointment letter which reads as under:- “15. He/she will not be paid any TA/DA for joining the place of posting. He she will not be entitled to any benefit, whatsoever, under the existing pension/family pension scheme. The provisions of new contributory pension scheme to be notified by the Govt. shall be applicable to him/her.” 4. Learned counsel contends that the condition is oppressive in so much as the petitioners were already serving on pensionable posts and, therefore, could not have been subjected to the condition as given out in the extracted portion above. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents having considered the issue, have issued instructions dated 24.10.2008, whereby relief is being given to persons similarly situated as the petitioners. Case of the petitioners, however, has not been considered within the scope of the said letter/instructions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that indeed the case of the petitioners needs to be considered in the context of instructions contained in letter dated 24.10.2008 issued by the respondents. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioners in view of letter/instructions dated C.W.P. No. 10294 of 2009 3 24.10.2008 and grant requisite relief if facts so warrant in terms thereof. The needful be done within four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 09.12.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?