CWP No.7805 of 2008 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:26.03.2009. Manjit Kaur ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. Present: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate. Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. PERFMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. While serving as SS Mistress, the petitioner was due to retire on 30.04.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. By virtue of the Punjab School Teachers Re-employment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioner applied for re-employment. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the petitioner is deemed to be re-employed with effect from 01.05.2008 to 31.03.2009. Vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2008, (Annexure P-3), the respondents have refused to re-employ the petitioner. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing the Memo. Dated 30.04.2008, Annexure P-3, and also a further writ for her re-employment upto 31.03.2009. On being put to notice, the respondents have filed their disclaimer. Specific stand taken in the reply is that when there is no need of a teacher according to the schedule workload and sanctioned strength of CWP No.7805 of 2008 :2: the school, there is no necessity for re-employment after the retirement of a teacher. It is further stated that for five classes with 66 periods, only two teachers were required. In sum and substance, the stand of the respondents is that sufficient number of regular teachers are available for the students and there is no further need for re-employment of a teacher. Since, one post of SS Master was already surplus, the petitioner could not be considered for re-employment. The object and purposes of of the Act aforesaid has already been decided by this Court in CWP No.14617 of 2008 (Satpal Bansal etc. Vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 10.03.2009, wherein the following observations have been made:- “......The object and purpose of the Re-employment Act is not to provide re-employment. If in any school, a teacher of the same subject is available and there is no necessity of another teacher who has retired from service after completing is innings is not required to be re-employed. It is not a mode of giving him job even after retirement. Re-employment is after all a burden on State revenue. It is a public money which cannot be distributed even by the State merely because the State wittingly or unwittingly makes some provisions for re-employment without any clear terms contained in the Act. Where the provision is ambiguous, its uncertainty achieved by any CWP No.7805 of 2008 :3: legislation. In view of the object and purpose of the Re-employment Act, I am of the considered opinion that the Act is not to provide re- employment, irrespective of the requirement of the teacher after retirement. It is to be need based and where the alternative arrangement is available, and the State has declined re-employment even in presence of the deeming provision, it is not in violation of Section 3. In view of the above, I find no merit in both the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.” This case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment aforesaid as also in view of the specific stand taken in the reply by the respondents, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. At this stage, Mr.Arora, submits that the petitioner is entitled to wages/salary for the period she has actually worked. In this regard the respondents are directed to examine this aspect and if the petitioner has actually worked and performed duties for any period, the salary for the said period shall be disbursed to her in accordance with law. 26.03.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO