IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11466 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 24, 2009 Parveen Rani .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed by Ms. Parveen Rani under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 5 (Mrs. Manju Bhardwaj, Head Mistress, Govt. High School, Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana) to implement order dated 05.05.2009 issued by respondent no. 4 (The District Education Officer, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana) and consequently allow the petitioner to join her duty as Sewing Teacher at Govt. Girls High School, Dakha, District Ludhiana. Perusal of order Annexure P-3 indicates that District Education Officer, vide order dated 05.05.2009, granted sanction for re-employment of the petitioner and others after their retirement upto 31.03.2010 on the C.W.P. No. 11466 of 2009 -2- existing scale with the condition that pension drawn by the petitioner and others would be deducted from the payment of their salary. The sanction has been granted in accordance with letter dated 01.03.2007 issued by Punjab Government, Education Department under the Punjab Teacher Re- employment Act, 2006. It is not in dispute that District Education Officer has the jurisdiction to issue and convey such orders passed by the Government to the Head Mistress. Under the circumstances, respondent no. 5 was required to allow the petitioner to join as a Sewing Teacher in her school. In the petition, it has been pleaded that despite orders having been passed by an authority having competent jurisdiction, the petitioner was not allowed to join. No reasons were assigned therefor. The petitioner made repeated requests to respondent no. 5 to allow her to join her duty. Even a legal notice was got served on respondent no 5 to which no reply was received. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed in Court by way of short affidavit of Amarjit Kaur, District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Ludhiana on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4. Para no. 2 thereof would be relevant in the context of the prayer made in the petition. Para no. 2, when extracted, reads as under:- “That earlier the respondent no. 5 had been reluctant to implement the order of the competent authority in allowing the petitioner to join duty after being re-employed. The intervening period of the petitioner from 01.05.2009 to 18.08.2009 would be C.W.P. No. 11466 of 2009 -3- treated as duty period for all intents and purposes besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent no. 5 for disobeying the orders of higher authorities.” It has further been made clear that the petitioner has been allowed to join duty on 19.08.2009 in Government Girls High School, Dakha, District Ludhiana. In view of the stand of the respondents, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner has been addressed and granted. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 24.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?