CWP No.431 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 431 of 1995 Date of decision 22.4.2009 Ram Nath and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr.Amit Chopra ,Advocate for the appellant Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of advance increment from the date of acquiring post graduate qualification alongwith all consequential benefits. The petitioners have admittedly acquired post graduation qualification after 19.2.1979. It is appropriate to mention that claim of other petitioners is based on the instructions dated 23.7.1957 which have been later on withdrawn on 19.2.1979 (P.4). The withdrawal of the instructions on 19.2.1979 were challenged and the challenge has been repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joga Singh (LPA No.374 of 1994 decided on 20.2.1996) and Kanwaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996(1) RSJ 313. All the petitioners have acquired post graduate qualifications after 19.2.1979 when 1957 instructions had already been withdrawn. The only question raised for determination is whether or not they are entitled to advance increment on account of their CWP No.431 of 1995 2 higher qualifications after the cut off date i.e. 19.2.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Rajinder Kumari v. State of Punjab (Civil Writ Petition No. 4515 of 1986 decided on 28.1.1988) and also a judgement of the learned Single Judge in the case of Baldev Raj Sharma v. State of Punjab 1991(3) SCT 565. In the written statement the prayer made by the petitioners is opposed by taking the stand that the petitioners are not entitled for increments as their case is not covered under the instructions dated 19.2.1979. In para 16 of the reply it is categorically averred that benefit of advance increments is to be given to those masters/ mistresses who acquired the post graduation degree before 19.2.1979. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioners is fully covered against the petitioners by the Division Bench judgement rendered in Joga Singh's case (supra) and Kanwaljit Kaur's case (supra) .In view of the above enunciation of law, the instant petition is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussion this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) 22.4.2009 Judge okg