IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 5921 of 2011 Date of Decision: 4.4.2011. Surinder Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Director (S.A.2), whereby it is held that benefit of service rendered for 89 days will not be counted for the purposes of grant of any benefit to the employees. This order seems to have been passed on the basis of a judgement of this Court passed in CWP No. 7765 of 2003 titled as Smt. Harinder Kaur, Punjabi Mistress and another Vs. Punjab Govt. A copy of this judgement has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. In the aforesaid judgement, this Court while considering the contention of the writ petitioners held that period of service rendered as a stop gap arrangement for 89 days not to be counted for any service benefit. The relevant observations are as under:- “ A bare reading of the plain language of the Rules reproduced above shows that the same has no application to the case of the petitioners who, as mentioned above, were appointed on 89 days by way of stop-gap arrangement and were allowed to continue on that basis in view of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General, Punjab in C.M. No. 12636-II of 1996 in COCP No. 409 of 1996. CWP. No. 5921 of 2011 -2- In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we direct the respondents not to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners because it has neither been suggested nor proved that they had made any misrepresentation or played fraud on the competent authority for wrong fixation of their pay. Sd/- G.S. Singhvi Judge. Sd/- Nirmal Singh Judge.” I have carefully perused the judgement. The Hon'ble Division Bench while delivering the aforesaid judgement took into consideration the statutory rules particularly Rules 4.9 and 4.9(a), whereunder an employee is entitled to certain benefits of previous service etc. The petitioners have been denied the benefit of the stop-gap/ad hoc service rendered by them from time to time on 89 days basis in view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgement. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioners has forcefully argued that notwithstanding the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court on the issue, the same cannot be applied in case of the petitioners as they were not party to the judgement. Even though, the petitioners may not be party to the judgement, however, a Division Bench of this Court has decided an issue and once the issue is decided, which may effected the rights of even non-petitioners, the judgement is to be taken as a judgement in rem for this purpose. Judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench is a binding precedent for this Court; no other view is possible. CWP. No. 5921 of 2011 -3- The other contention of the petitioner is that the Punjab Recruitment of Teachers Act, 1999 was not taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Even this plea is not available to the petitioner before this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.4.2011. lucky