CWP No.2240 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Anita Yadav ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Petitioner applied for the post of Sanskrit Teacher in response to the advertisement No.7/2003 dated 18.10.2003. Two posts were reserved for outstanding Sportspersons BC-B category. The petitioner had applied being eligible for the post of Sanskrit Teacher against the category reserved for Outstanding Sportspersons Block-B. The Commission called the candidates for interview in the month of August, 2004, result whereof was declared on 29.11.2005 wherein the petitioner was declared successful. Name of the petitioner was forwarded vide order dated 03.01.2006 to the concerned District Education Officer for issuing her appointment letter. Appointment letter was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2006 and she ultimately joined as such. The petitioner applied for opening of the GPF account which was denied on the ground that since she has joined only on 08.03.2006 and new pension policy came into existence w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the petitioner should send her case as per the new policy. The claim of the petitioner in this petition is that she be given the deemed date of appointment as Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 12.08.2004 instead of 08.03.2006 i.e. the date when her juniors namely, Smt. Madhu Yadav was given appointment as Sanskrit Teacher, along with CWP No.2240 of 2009 2 all consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay, arrears of salary etc. Some of the persons lower in merit had been appointed earlier. On that basis the petitioner claims her deemed date of appointment from the date her junior has been appointed. The respondents have filed the reply. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner has already been given seniority number prior to her juniors and she is entitled for all other benefits as per service rules. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that similar controversy came for consideration before this Court in CWP No.725 of 2009 (Parshant Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 16.03.2010, wherein the following observation/directions have been made:- “Some of the persons lower in merit had been appointed earlier. On that basis, the petitioners claim their deemed date of appointment from the date their juniors have been appointed. Having failed to persuade, the respondents to grant the relief, presnt petition has been filed claiming the date of appointment w.e.f. 10 August, 2004 instead of February/March, 2006. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the petitioners restricted the relief to the only deemed date of appointment for purpose of re-fixation of pay and seniority as is evident from the order dated 16.1.2009. The respondents have filed the reply. It is stated that the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of appointment w.e.f. 20.08.2004, the date when the CWP No.2240 of 2009 3 persons junior to them were appointed. Not only that even seniority has been fixed on the basis of the merit achieved in the process of selection with their batch. This clearly established that the relief in respect to claim of the petitioners has been given except the re-fixation of the pay. The only prayer now is to direct the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioners on the basis of the deemed date of appointment w.e.f.20.08.2004. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner from the deemed date of appointment notionally and consequential order be passed within three months. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of revised salary from the date of joining.” The aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner is also held entitled to the same relief. Petition disposed of. 28.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO